High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2010

Coram: The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. For the respondents. : : None. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant A.G. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The enquiry officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reversion from the post of A.S.I. to Head Constable upon the petitioner vide order dated 21st February,

1997. He preferred an appeal against this order before the Deputy Inspector General, Mandi. He dismissed the same on 11th March,

1997. Thereafter, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police on 16.05.1997 vide Annexure-PE. He dismissed the same on 08.09.1997 (Annexure-PF) without a speaking order. It is now well settled that the order passed by the appellate authority must be speaking and reasoned. The appellate authority has to take into consideration all the grounds raised in 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. the memorandum of appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal.

Their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: (cid:147)Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal Court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof.

In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate authority must give reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. Their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari versus Andhra Education Society and others, 2010 (2) SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order.